Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36556261
    !?

    Wouldn't UK get involved soon or later as we have a special relationship?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I am very confused as-to the title. I believe that it is highly unlikely we would see a third world war trigger in Syria, more likely there would be a limited exchange and Russia would instead focus on hurting us in our own backyard; an invasion of the Baltic states.

    The UK would probably want to avoid angering Russia. possibly appeasing the US by taking up the mantle for more airstrikes in Iraqi/Syrian terrorist groups. However i doubt we would follow them into striking Assad's government, and anyway right now Assad is the lesser of two evils.

    What we didn't know during the first and second Gulf Wars was just how quickly the Iraqi command structure/civil services would topple over. As a result it opened up a massive power vacuum which we (the west) never managed to fill.

    By bombing Assad's forces without the advantage of having divisions on the ground then we would turn this vacuum into a giant void, a safe-haven for terrorists and the like, not to mention having to cope with the repopulation of refugees that are stuck in Syria. (Most of those walking into the EU have been migrants, the real refugees are still in Syrian, Jordanian and Iraqi refugee camps, these are the people i want us to fly over to the UK in the thousands.)

    So all-in-all i'd say no, we will not and should not get involved in attacking Assad's government. We should be spending our resources improving readiness and defence in the Baltic states, as any direct escalation between a single NATO power and Russia could be catastrophic, a true third world-war in a sense.

    Best regards
    Francis.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I fully support the UK joining the US in bombing Assad, a man who slaughtered his own people and has caused the current civil war to enter its 5th year.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I fully support the UK joining the US in bombing Assad, a man who slaughtered his own people and has caused the current civil war to enter its 5th year.
    However, that will spark a new cold war/world war with Russia
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckfeister)
    However, that will spark a new cold war/world war with Russia
    The cold war never ended, both Russia and the west made too many mistakes in the 1990-2008 period (Russia should have been treated like Japan and Germany post war) for unity and the second act started with the annexation of Georgia in 08.

    At any rate, Russia won't start world war 3 for Assad. If Putin were that mad, he'd have invaded Poland rather than Ukraine.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I fully support the UK joining the US in bombing Assad, a man who slaughtered his own people and has caused the current civil war to enter its 5th year.
    Playing right into the hands of Daesh :rolleyes:


    ''Hey Obama, when we gonna go bomb Assad? Obama pls, bomb Assad'' ~ Hillary
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    WW3 will start in the South China Sea.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daddy Longlegz)
    Playing right into the hands of Daesh :rolleyes:

    ''Hey Obama, when we gonna go bomb Assad? Obama pls, bomb Assad'' ~ Hillary
    It's not playing into their hands if we win. ISIS can be defeated if we put boots on the ground and no longer abide by the rules of just war protecting civilians. ISIS will quickly crumble if we turn their cities to glass.

    Most people lack resolve though, so bombing is the best we have.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    It's not playing into their hands if we win. ISIS can be defeated if we put boots on the ground and no longer abide by the rules of just war protecting civilians. ISIS will quickly crumble if we turn their cities to glass.

    Most people lack resolve though, so bombing is the best we have.
    What does any of that achieve? Assad is a tyrant, all of the Syrian opposition groups are Salafists who are 10x worse. The best way to deal with the middle east is make sure our allies are sorted, Israel + Kurds the objective should be to reduce our dependence on Arab nations, then shield ourselves from terrorism. This century will be about Asia and high tech economies, not useless oil rich states with uneducated populations. I would have made peace Iran years ago rather than sabre-rattling like Cold War era dinosaurs. Once we get fracking online we can really tell them where to go.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 18, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.